BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

33 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(25)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,514Delhi2,398Chennai674Jaipur543Bangalore530Hyderabad456Ahmedabad454Kolkata366Raipur275Chandigarh247Indore242Pune227Surat207Rajkot149Amritsar143Cochin132Visakhapatnam100Lucknow85SC85Nagpur83Guwahati52Panaji50Allahabad49Jodhpur46Cuttack45Agra35Patna33Ranchi26Dehradun16Varanasi13Jabalpur12MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)27Section 26325Addition to Income25Section 153A22Section 25020Section 80I14Section 13211Survey u/s 133A11Section 271(1)(b)10Section 142(1)

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 10/PAT/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(3)

section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of the notices at the end of the assessee. Ultimately the ld. Assessing Officer gone through the books of account submitted before her and made these two additions by recording the following finding:- “Addition u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- through bearer cheques:- On perusal of Books

SIS CASH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

10
Natural Justice8
Penalty4
ITA 240/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed
ITAT Patna
26 May 2025
AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

25,91,254 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, being employees' contribution to Provident Fund on the ground that the same was deposited beyond the time period specified.\n3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the NF AC erred in not appreciating that the above adjustment made is beyond the scope of adjustments specified under

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 25/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

25. Next issue for our consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.28,317/-. We find that the disallowance has been made by the Id. Assessing Officer apply and provisions of section 44ADA of the Act. Since the facts of the assessee are identical as has been dealt by us for Assessment Year 2018-19 and assessee

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 23/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

25. Next issue for our consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.28,317/-. We find that the disallowance has been made by the Id. Assessing Officer apply and provisions of section 44ADA of the Act. Since the facts of the assessee are identical as has been dealt by us for Assessment Year 2018-19 and assessee

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 22/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

25. Next issue for our consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.28,317/-. We find that the disallowance has been made by the Id. Assessing Officer apply and provisions of section 44ADA of the Act. Since the facts of the assessee are identical as has been dealt by us for Assessment Year 2018-19 and assessee

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 21/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

25. Next issue for our consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.28,317/-. We find that the disallowance has been made by the Id. Assessing Officer apply and provisions of section 44ADA of the Act. Since the facts of the assessee are identical as has been dealt by us for Assessment Year 2018-19 and assessee

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 20/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

25. Next issue for our consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.28,317/-. We find that the disallowance has been made by the Id. Assessing Officer apply and provisions of section 44ADA of the Act. Since the facts of the assessee are identical as has been dealt by us for Assessment Year 2018-19 and assessee

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 17/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

25. Next issue for our consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.28,317/-. We find that the disallowance has been made by the Id. Assessing Officer apply and provisions of section 44ADA of the Act. Since the facts of the assessee are identical as has been dealt by us for Assessment Year 2018-19 and assessee

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 19/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

25. Next issue for our consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.28,317/-. We find that the disallowance has been made by the Id. Assessing Officer apply and provisions of section 44ADA of the Act. Since the facts of the assessee are identical as has been dealt by us for Assessment Year 2018-19 and assessee

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 18/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

25. Next issue for our consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.28,317/-. We find that the disallowance has been made by the Id. Assessing Officer apply and provisions of section 44ADA of the Act. Since the facts of the assessee are identical as has been dealt by us for Assessment Year 2018-19 and assessee

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 26/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

25. Next issue for our consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.28,317/-. We find that the disallowance has been made by the Id. Assessing Officer apply and provisions of section 44ADA of the Act. Since the facts of the assessee are identical as has been dealt by us for Assessment Year 2018-19 and assessee

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 27/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

25. Next issue for our consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.28,317/-. We find that the disallowance has been made by the Id. Assessing Officer apply and provisions of section 44ADA of the Act. Since the facts of the assessee are identical as has been dealt by us for Assessment Year 2018-19 and assessee

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. AJIT KUMAR, BETTIAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 239/PAT/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69

section 40A(3) are not applicable. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not Including the Issue In the remand order Issued by him for examination of the undisclosed receipt from business of the assessee. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vila)

ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 44,70,128/- made by the AO on account of provision for food and beverage to staff in office premises by admitting fresh evidence during the course of appellate proceedings and without allowing the Assessing Officer

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 357/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 359/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 360/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 358/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL , PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 356/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

ITA 86/PAT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

disallowing the claim of deduction u/ s BOIC of the act.” 5. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is no longer res integra that assembling of goods is also held to be a manufacturing activity because it gives rise to a new product with a new name